Misjudging

article published in law journalJudging is difficult. This is obviously so in cases where the law is unclear or the facts are uncertain. But even in those cases where the law is as clear as it can be, and where the relevant facts have been fully developed, judges might still have difficulty getting it right. Why do judges misjudge? Judges, I will argue, possess three sets of "blinders": informational blinders, cognitive blinders, and attitudinal blinders. These blinders make adjudication on the merits - by which I mean the accurate application of governing law to the facts of the case - difficult. This difficulty, in turn, has important implications for disputants and their lawyers for it bears directly on the choice of dispute-resolution forum. In Part I of this paper, I will develop the positive argument that judges sometimes misjudge due to these three sets of blinders. To do so, I will rely largely on experimental research from psychology and empirical research from political science. Having developed the positive argument in Part I, I will turn to the prescriptive argument in Part II. There, I will explore the forum-selection implications of misjudging - namely, I will argue that the risk of misjudging suggests that various alternative dispute resolution processes, for different reasons and in different ways, might serve disputants better than adjudication

Remaking the United States Supreme Court in the Courts’ of Appeals Image

We argue that Congress should remake the United States Supreme Court in the U.S. courts\u27 of appeals image by increasing the size of the Court\u27s membership, authorizing panel decisionmaking, and retaining an en banc procedure for select cases. In so doing, Congress would expand the Court\u27s capacity to decide cases, facilitating enhanced clarity and consistency in the law as well as heightened monitoring of lower courts and the other branches. Remaking the Court in this way would not only expand the Court\u27s decisionmaking capacity but also improve the Court\u27s composition, competence, and functioning

Using Bargaining for Advantage in Law School Negotiation Courses

Review Essay: Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People. By G. Richard Shell. New York: Viking, 1999.Published in cooperation with the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolutio

Opening Offers and Out-of-Court Settlement: A Little Moderation May Not Go a Long Way

Published in cooperation with the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolutio

Anchoring, Information, Expertise, and Negotiation: New Insights from Meta-Analysis

Published in cooperation with the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolutio

Protocol for the effective feedback to improve primary care prescribing safety (EFIPPS) study : a cluster randomised controlled trial using ePrescribing data

High-risk prescribing in primary care is common and causes considerable harm. Feedback interventions to improve care are attractive because they are relatively cheap to widely implement. There is good evidence that feedback has small to moderate effects, but the most recent Cochrane review called for more high-quality, large trials that explicitly test different forms of feedback. The study is a three-arm cluster-randomised trial with general practices being randomised and outcomes measured at patient level. 262 practices in three Scottish Health Board areas have been randomised (94% of all possible practices). The two active arms receive different forms of prescribing safety data feedback, with rates of high-risk prescribing compared with a ‘usual care’ arm. Sample size estimation used baseline data from participating practices. With 85 practices randomised to each arm, then there is 93% power to detect a 25% difference in the percentage of high-risk prescribing (from 6.1% to 4.5%) between the usual care arm and each intervention arm. The primary outcome is a composite of six high-risk prescribing measures (antipsychotic prescribing to people aged ≥75 years; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prescribing to people aged ≥75 without gastroprotection; NSAID prescribing to people prescribed aspirin/clopidogrel without gastroprotection; NSAID prescribing to people prescribed an ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker and a diuretic; NSAID prescription to people prescribed an oral anticoagulant without gastroprotection; aspirin/clopidogrel prescription to people prescribed an oral anticoagulant without gastroprotection). The primary analysis will use multilevel modelling to account for repeated measurement of outcomes in patients clustered within practices. The study was reviewed and approved by the NHS Tayside Committee on Medical Research Ethics B (11/ES/0001). The study will be disseminated via a final report to the funder with a publicly available research summary, and peer reviewed publications

Descriptive epidemiology of African horse sickness in Zimbabwe

A study of the prevalence of African horse sickness in horses was conducted, using records from two private equine practices in Harare for the period 1998–2004. Results indicated a higher prevalence of the disease in horses in Zimbabwe in the late rainy season (March – May). Age of the horse was found to be a significant risk factor, with foals or yearlings appearing to be 1.80 times more likely to contract the disease compared with horses older than two years. The case fatality rate in foals or yearlings was also higher than in older age groups, but this difference was not significant. The vaccination status was an important risk factor, with vaccinated horses 0.12 times less likely to die from the disease compared with unvaccinated horses. Young, unvaccinated horses therefore seem to be the most susceptible to the disease and have greater chances of fatality. This study highlights the importance of adequately protecting horses against African horse sickness by providing immunisation through vaccination and discusses the need to review current vaccination strategies being practiced in Zimbabwe

Depression and anxiety predict health-related quality of life in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Published onlineJournal ArticleMeta-AnalysisResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tReviewBACKGROUND: The causal association between depression, anxiety, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is unclear. We therefore conducted a systematic review of prospective cohort studies that measured depression, anxiety, and HRQoL in COPD. METHODS: Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature [CINAHL], British Nursing Index and Archive, PsycINFO and Cochrane database) were searched from inception to June 18, 2013. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they: used a nonexperimental prospective cohort design; included patients with a diagnosis of COPD confirmed by spirometry; and used validated measures of depression, anxiety, and HRQoL. Data were extracted and pooled using random effects models. RESULTS: Six studies were included in the systematic review; of these, three were included in the meta-analysis for depression and two were included for the meta-analysis for anxiety. Depression was significantly correlated with HRQoL at 1-year follow-up (pooled r=0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.37-0.57, P<0.001). Anxiety was also significantly correlated with HRQoL at 1-year follow-up (pooled r=0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.23-0.48, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Anxiety and depression predict HRQoL in COPD. However, this longitudinal analysis does not show cause and effect relationships between depression and anxiety and future HRQoL. Future studies should identify psychological predictors of poor HRQoL in well designed prospective cohorts with a view to isolating the mediating role played by anxiety disorder and depression.NIHRUniversity of ManchesterCLAHR

Damages: Using a Case Study to Teach Law, Lawyering, and Dispute Resolution

Seven law school faculty members and one practicing attorney recently developed and taught a wholly new kind of law course based on an already published case study, Damages: One Family\u27s Legal Struggles in the World of Medicine, by Barry Werth, an investigative reporter who spent several years researching to write the book. Damages, an in-depth account of a medical malpractice case, presents the perspectives of the injured family, the defendant physician, the lawyers, and the three mediators. In this Symposium Introduction, the authors provide a summary of Werth\u27s book, explain why they decided to create a course based on his book, describe the course, and suggest ways that other law schools might use the course materials they developed